Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 511 (CAL)

HINDUSTAN CABLES LIMITED v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2001-08-17

D.K.SETH

body2001
D. K. SETH, J. ( 1 ) IN this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the two notices dated June 26, 1995 and July 6, 1995 by which the State Contract labour Advisory Committee proposed to visit the factory of the petitioner on the ground that the appropriate Government in relation to the petitioner is the Central Government and as such, the State Government cannot undertake to exercise the power conferred under Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as "1970 Act" ). ( 2 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there cannot be any spot visit by the said State Contract Labour Advisory committee since Section 10 of the 1970 Act does not provide for any such spot visit. He also contends that the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) (Central) Rules, 1971 also do not provide anything with regard to the manner as to how the authority under Section 10 of the 1970 Act will be exercised. In the absence of any such provision, the Authority has no power to make a spot visit of the factory. He relies on the definition of "appropriate Government" under Section 2 (a) of the 1970 Act. According to him, though the meaning of 'central government' is borrowed from the Industrial disputes Act, 1947 but still, it should be the central Government when it relates to an authority to be exercised under the 1970 Act. No delegation of power under Section 39 of the industrial Disputes Act would empower the state Government to exercise the power under section 10 of the 1970 Act since the 1970 Act does not enjoin any power of delegation. Thus, the delegation of power under the Industrial disputes Act is confined to the exercise of powers under the Industrial Disputes Act and not beyond that. Therefore, according to him, the impugned notices should be quashed and the Writ Petition should be allowed. ( 3 ) MR. Rameshwar Bhattacharyya appearing for the Trade Union sought to intervene on the ground that it was their right which was being affected in this Writ Petition. ( 4 ) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, leave is given to Mr. Bhattacharyya to intervene in this matter. ( 5 ) MR. ( 4 ) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, leave is given to Mr. Bhattacharyya to intervene in this matter. ( 5 ) MR. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel for the Union of India, however, contends that by reason of Section 4 of the 1970 Act, the State contract Labour Advisory Committee is formed and it can also constitute Committee which may visit or make spot enquiry, if necessary. Therefore, according to him, there is no infirmity in the Notices issued. He also contends that in view of the delegation of powers made under Section 39 of the Industrial disputes Act and having regard to the definition of the appropriate Government in Section 2 (a) of the 1970 Act, the delegate would be appropriate Government under the Industrial disputes Act. The definition being a definition of reference, the entire definition is to be borrowed and applied in this case. He also contends that Section 10 of the 1970 Act provides a power to take a decision for prohibition of Contract Labour having regard to the condition of work and benefits provided for the Contract Labour in the establishment and other relevant factors as provided in clauses (a) to (d) thereof. In order to take these factors into account, an enquiry may be necessary. In the absence of any provision if a particular procedure or mode is adopted, in that event there is nothing in the Act to prevent such an exercise. Therefore, the Writ Petition should be dismissed. ( 6 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties at length. The petitioner is a government of India undertaking of which 100% share is held by the Central Government. Therefore, according to the definition of the 'appropriate Government' under the Industrial disputes Act, it is the Central Government which is the appropriate Government within the meaning of Section 2 (a) of the 1970 Act. Whether the delegation of power under Section 39 of the Industrial Disputes Act will include the State Government or not is not necessary to be gone into in the present case, since the said delegation was in relation to powers exercisable under the Industrial Disputes Act. When a power is delegated, such delegation is confined to the terms of such delegation and cannot travel beyond the same. When a power is delegated, such delegation is confined to the terms of such delegation and cannot travel beyond the same. When the delegation is made only in respect of powers exercisable under the Industrial Disputes Act, such delegation cannot extend to the powers to be exercised under the 1970 Act. Therefore, in the present case by reason of the definition as contained in section 2 (a) of the 1970 Act, the state Government cannot be held to be the 'appropriate Government'. If the State government is not the appropriate government, in that event the State Contract labour Advisory Committee cannot undertake the exercise contemplated under Section 10 of the 1970 Act. ( 7 ) SECTION 4 of the 1970 Act provides for constitution of State Board while Section 3 provides for constitution of Central Board. Such different Boards were contemplated in view of the definition of the 'appropriate Government' in relation to a particular establishment. Thus, the central Board has its own sphere of activities while that of the State Board had different sphere of activities. Thus, the State Board cannot usurp the power of the Central Board unless the Statute otherwise provides. ( 8 ) IN the circumstances, the purported attempt by the State Contract Labour Advisory committee in issuing the said Notices and to hold a spot enquiry cannot be sustained and, as such, the said two Notices dated June 26, 1995 and July 6, 1995, being Annexures "e and "g" respectively to the petition, are hereby quashed. ( 9 ) HOWEVER, it is not necessary to go into the question as to whether a spot enquiry can be made or not since the State Contract Labour advisory Committee has no jurisdiction to go into the matter. The decision on this aspect would be wholly uncalled for and/or irrelevant. ( 10 ) THIS Writ Petition, therefore, stands allowed. ( 11 ) THE Rule is made absolute. ( 12 ) THERE will be no order as to costs. ( 13 ) SINCE Mr. Bhattacharyya has not used any affidavit in this matter, the allegations contained in the petition are not admitted by the respondents. ( 14 ) ALL parties concerned are to act on a xeroxed signed copy of this Dictated Order on the usual undertaking.